SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27758

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, J
SAINUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 465, 468 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner introduced the 2nd accused to the defacto complainant stating that the 2nd accused would be able to arrange a visa for the defacto complainant. Persuaded by the petitioner's representation, the defacto complainant handed over Rs.19,500/- to the petitioner and the 2nd accused for arranging visa. But, later, a paper was shown to the defacto complainant stating that it is a visa but it was not actually a visa. He was thereby cheated by the petitioner etc.

are the allegations.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in the position of a victim. The petitioner himself took a demand draft for Rs.19,500/- for obtaining a job visa for himself believing that 2nd accused would be able to arrange one for him but he was cheated. The petitioner only introduced the defacto complainant to the 2nd accused. But, he voluntarily gave demand B.A.4756/2008 draft to the 2nd accused. As per the allegations in the complaint, though generally, it is stated that both accused persuaded the defacto compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top